Number three for Xi: power in China

Hello and welcome to The Intelligence from The Economist. In New York, I'm Jon Fassman.

And in London, I'm Jason Palmer. Every weekday, we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

With record numbers of people showing up at America's southern border, Republicans see immigration as a winning campaign issue. Having long hoped the problem would just go away, The Biden administration is starting to respond.

And for years, the widely agreed gold standard for football video games has been FIFA, produced by EA Sports. But now the governing body that lent its name to the franchise is pulling out, and fans are wondering where the game will head next.

But first— Every 5 years, China's ruling Communist Party holds its Congress in Beijing, largely behind closed doors, to choose its new leaders. The world learns who they are when they stride out onto a bright red stage before a mass of cameras.

Please join me in a warm applause to welcome the General Secretary and other Political Bureau Standing Committee members.

As the Congress came to its close yesterday and a pair of giant gilded doors opened before the waiting media, it was China's current leader, Xi Jinping, who walked out first.

So I was one of the journalists at the Great Hall of the People as the Party Congress closed.

Gabriel Crossley is our China correspondent.

This is a vast building off Tiananmen Square with lots of chandeliers and marble pillars, and all the journalists are stuck at the top of a balcony in a large auditorium, kept very far away from the stage. So people are passing around binoculars so they can see the top leaders down in the auditorium. And then we have a series of carefully choreographed votes to taking place, and then the International is played at the end and everyone leaves. And then the next day, Xi Jinping will walk out onto a different stage and announce that he has just been elected as General Secretary. So Xi Jinping is set to carry on as a general secretary and head of the armed forces for at least another 5 years, and he's also expected to be confirmed as president next year around March.

And Gabriel, that was expected, as we mentioned on the show last week, but it's still kind of unusual for a leader in China to serve a third term, right?

When Xi came to power a decade ago, then people thought that he would just be serving two 5-year terms. But 5 years ago, at the last party congress, he didn't appoint a successor, and then nobody therefore expected he would be stepping down this year. Before every party congress, there's always a flurry of rumors over who might be in and who might be out. Of course, all the decisions are made behind closed doors in great secrecy. So with no real doubt over Xi's position yesterday, all the reporters in the room, including myself, were really looking at the 6 men who were walking in behind Xi, as these would be the new members of China's most important decision-making body, which is the Standing Committee of the Politburo.

Who did follow him out? Who are the new members of the committee and who is no longer on it?

If we start with who's no longer there, the most important 2 names who are missing are Li Keqiang, who's China's Prime Minister and who was many years ago once seen as a potential General Secretary, and Wang Yang, who was once seen as Mr. Li's probable successor. And then two other members, Han Zheng and Zhao Lijie, were also removed. They both reached the usual retirement age. That opened up four new spots. Mr. Xi brought in four loyalists. His new number two is called Li Qiang. He's likely going to be China's next prime minister, named in March. He's best known recently for overseeing a shambolic lockdown of Shanghai earlier this year. Joining Li Qiang are Cai Qi and Li Si, who are the party bosses of Beijing and Guangdong Province. And then finally, there's Ding Xuexiang, who's Mr. Xi's former chief of staff. All of these men have long associations with Mr. Xi. To clarify, Li Keqiang, Li Qiang, and Li Si are not related. The addition of these four men really changes the feel of the Politburo Standing Committee. So once it used to be that different committee members had ties to different party factions, and the decisions that the body made were likely results of compromises between them. But Xi all but owns this new standing committee he's made.

Why do you think Xi elevated Li Qiang, who oversaw, as you said, a shambolic lockdown in Shanghai? Is that somehow a signal to Shanghai's residents?

You could argue that rewarding Li Qiang after what is seen by many people as a failure does put into question the party claim to be a meritocracy. Perhaps Xi is rewarding loyalty over competence. Certainly that wouldn't look good if you're an angry resident of Shanghai, but On the other hand, Mr. Xi does appear to think that tough lockdowns are what's needed to combat COVID-19. So it's possible that he might not really see the lockdown as a failure necessarily. In the end, it did bring down infections.

More broadly, what do you make of the changes to the Standing Committee?

Mr. Xi seems to have gotten rid of many of the old norms which appeared to be governing the Communist Party. Start with his getting rid of the two-term limit, which was expected. There's no sign of him appointing a successor. The other norm which is no longer in place is an age limit where previously top leadership positions were not given to officials who were over the age of 67. Now Mr. Xi is 69 and his new top general is 72. Prime ministers were once expected to have served in the central government, and Li Qiang has not. And then finally, party ideology has also been reshaped in Mr. Xi's favor.

How so?

These changes were announced on Saturday. There were various changes made to the party's charter. One of them asks, for instance, party members to protect Mr. Xi's position at the core of the party. When Mr. Xi asked if anyone disagreed with the changes made to the charter and if anyone abstained, there was a sort of chorus of no. So indicating unanimous support, followed by applause. Mr. Xi was described at the closing ceremony in grandiose terms. A resolution by Congress said his position as core of the party has ultimately set the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on an irreversible historical course.

And the other thing we saw on Saturday was Mr. Xi's predecessor, Hu Jintao, forcibly removed from the stage in full view of the cameras. What do you make of that?

Yeah, that's probably the most puzzling thing which happened at this Congress. Mr. Hu was escorted out in front of everyone despite being clearly reluctant to leave. He was sitting next to Mr. Xi when this happened. No explanation was given at the time, and footage of his departure was censored on China's internet. The state media then reported that Mr. Hu, who is 79 and does appear to be quite frail, had been unwell, and that's why he was removed from the hall. It's not clear what the reasons are. Nevertheless, I think we could see it as symbolic of the changing power dynamics in the party. Mr. Hu, one of his protégés was Li Keqiang, who's been removed. Another one who was also linked to Hu Jintao is Hu Chunhua, who was removed from the Politburo. I think it's clear that Hu and the men who were linked to him have really left the stage in China's politics, and remaining is Xi and his allies.

So it's sign after sign then that there's no challenge at all to Mr. Xi's authority.

Yeah, there does not appear to be anyone trying to challenge Xi Jinping. Mr. Xi's policies to control COVID, which have involved massive lockdowns for years now and have created huge challenges for the economy— people thought this could be a threat to his authority. I don't think we've seen any evidence so far that his authority has in fact been weakened by COVID. There are a few signs that before this Congress he had a great many limits to his authority. But now, with a new, more loyal Standing Committee and a more flattering party charter, whatever limits there were, I suppose, to his authority are weaker now.

All right, Gabriel, thanks so much for joining us.

Thank you.

Healthcare can feel complicated. That's why Optum uses technology to connect the people and processes that make healthcare easier, more affordable, and more effective. We're making it clearer for you to know exactly what your benefits cover, and to help you better manage your health, we're coordinating care between your doctors and your technology. We believe better, simpler healthcare is always possible. That's healthy optimism. That's Optum. Visit optum.com to learn more.

On the campaign trail in 2020, Joe Biden pledged to stop the expansion of Donald Trump's border wall.

There will not be another foot of wall constructed in my administration, number one.

But in recent months, The White House has quietly reversed course, and today, gaps in the wall are being filled. The policy reversal has come in the face of record numbers of migrants arriving at America's southern border. To stem the flow, Republicans are calling for a tougher approach. For instance, they want to end the practice commonly called catch and release, which lets some migrants remain in the United States while awaiting immigration hearings. And to drive their point home, some, like Texas Governor Greg Abbott, have sent busloads of migrants to Democratic states. Central Americans. We just crossed the border from Mexico yesterday, and we were— we got onto a bus from Texas, and they said that we were going to Chicago, and someone was expecting us here. A few weeks ago, with the midterms bearing down, President Biden introduced a plan to keep Venezuelans away from the U.S. border. But while that has led to a drop in crossings, many Democrats, particularly those on the left, remain skeptical of tougher immigration policy. With Election Day looming, the border is becoming an ever greater thorn in the side of the Biden administration.

The border became a politically supercharged topic as Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 to build a border wall. It's taken on greater importance recently for two reasons. The first is that there's a larger flow of people. So from last October until the end of August, border officials encountered migrants about 2.2 million times on the southern border, which is about double the number of encounters we saw in the 2019 fiscal year.

Alexandra Stewich Bass is The Economist's senior correspondent for politics, technology, and society.

The second reason is because Republicans perceive it as a winning campaign issue. With Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, they're able to use what's happening on the border the border as a symbol of Democratic incompetence.

And so that's the border as a broad national political issue. Tell us a bit more how border concerns are playing out in states that actually lie along America's border with Mexico.

It's featuring extremely heavily in states like Texas and Arizona. In Arizona, the Republican candidate for governor, Kari Lake, who's been endorsed by Donald Trump, has promised to make the border her first action when she is sworn into office.

Day one about the border, number one priority.

So we're going to issue a declaration of invasion and get the ball rolling protecting our own state. Kari Lake blames Democrats for being too soft. She and Republicans in other border states like Greg Abbott, who is running for reelection for governor in Texas, talk about how broken the system is, and that's what is allowing criminals and drugs to flow into the country. But it's not just Republicans who are critical of what's happening. It's also Democrats. I spoke with Henry Cuellar, who is the U.S. representative for Texas's 28th Congressional District, who told me that the Biden administration has gotten federal border policy really wrong.

You have the Biden administration, you know, pretty much has open borders and say that the border is secure, but it's really not secure. I mean, I don't think anybody can say that with a straight face.

He wants the White House to do more to deter migrants publicly.

This administration, I've told them they ought to show images of people being returned after their legal relief has all gone, but they won't do that. They told me they will not do that.

Congressman Cuellar suggested the approach was hurting the chances of Democrats seeking office in border states.

If that's true, why isn't the White House saying more about it?

Congressman Cuellar says the administration is too worried about alienating the left wing of the party.

Yeah, they don't want to talk about it.

They specifically told me, we don't want to upset the immigration activists.

You hit it.

And it's worth pointing out that Democrats have really shifted to the left on this issue. Biden doesn't want to depress the base ahead of the midterms, and he sees this kind of as a no-win situation. Highlighting the border does not really resonate with Democrats, but it does strongly resonate with Republicans. According to a recent NBC News poll, registered voters perceive Republicans to be much stronger on border security, leading Democrats by 36 points.

Do you think that's deserved? How would you characterize the Biden administration's border policy to this point?

I would say that the Biden administration strategy is to close their eyes and hope this issue goes away. The Biden administration campaigned against the wall and against policies like Remain in Mexico, which keeps asylum seekers in Mexico in really difficult and dangerous conditions, and also campaigned on ending Title 42, which is a Trump-era public health order which has been used to expel people. But the Biden administration has frustrated everyone because they have not delivered on their campaign promises, partly because they've gotten ensnared in lawsuits by red states. So some progressives are really frustrated. And then I think I think moderates and Republicans are really frustrated with the Biden administration for not being clear about messaging and really setting out a proactive strategy for dealing with these elevated numbers.

So Alexandra, what is driving the large rush of people coming to the border?

Because of the way that Biden campaigned, promising a more humane immigration system, there's been the widespread perception that it would be easier to get into America now. And so it was the right time to make the trek. But to suggest that the Biden administration is solely responsible for this is completely incorrect. There are major push factors that are driving people to leave their home country and seek asylum in America. We are seeing massive inflation, political unrest, natural disasters and hurricanes, and tremendous poverty that's been aggravated by COVID. And that's why we see more people leaving their home country today than we've seen since World War II.

And so what do Republicans propose to do about the border?

Republicans are campaigning saying that this is an extremely easy fix, and then they tend to point to 3 things that they would do if they gain office. One is to complete the wall. The second is to end catch and release. And the third is that they will impeach Secretary Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security who oversees the border. Suggesting that border policy is simple and that Trump had fixed this issue is misleading. There were also elevated numbers of migrants coming while Trump was in office, despite all of his efforts to curtail migration. And things like ending catch and release is not easily done. There are only 25,000 detention beds. So if what Republicans are suggesting is that everyone who comes to the border is going to be detained, processed, and sent back back rather than released into America, that would require both much more detention beds and also a change of policy, because current law is that people are allowed in if they are asylum seekers to pursue their claims within America for as long as it takes for that to get resolved. This is going to require action by Congress. This is not going to be a simple fix that will come by electing Republicans.

And so Democrats have been putting their heads in the sand and hoping the issue would go away. Republicans have been proposing disingenuously simple solutions. What do you think the fix is? What does Congress need to do?

The solution would require a bipartisan bill in Congress. Everyone on both sides of the aisle agree that America's immigration system is very outdated. It is not designed for the realities of today, where you see unaccompanied children and families coming, not just single males coming for work, and they're coming from a much wider array of countries that are very difficult to send people home to. Right now, America's asylum system is its backdoor immigration policy. If someone wants to come to America, they come to the southern border and claim asylum rather than there being more viable lines they can get into in order to come work legally in America. So the whole system needs to be redesigned. The border is an issue that really exposes the political divisions in America, and it would require the political parties to transcend transcend those divisions to pass meaningful reform. Unfortunately, I don't think it's likely, and this issue is only going to continue to stay in the headlines and get worse in the months ahead.

All right, Alexandra, thanks so much for your time today.

John, thank you for having me.

If you'd like to hear more on this topic, listen to our sister podcast, Checks and Balance, a weekly American politics show from The Economist. In the latest episode, I speak to asylum seekers in New York while host Jon Pritto looks at whether immigration will cost Democrats votes in the midterms. This coming Thursday, subscribers can also join the Checks and Balances team for a live Q&A discussion about the midterms. To sign up for that, go to economist.com/checkswebinar or search for Checks and Balances on your podcast platform to listen in.

For die-hard football fans, FIFA means the governing body of the world game, the organization behind the upcoming World Cup. For plenty of others, though, the name brings to mind something else: the world's most popular sports video game.

I started this FIFA with 1 million FIFA points.

Plenty of forward momentum here, but can they produce?

Bad news for them. The organization that lent its name to the game franchise is moving on.

The Red Devils have lost the ball. So FIFA is a football simulation video game produced by EA Sports, a division of the American video game company Electronic Arts. And like football, it's a very simple game.

Vishnu Padmanabhan is a data journalist for The Economist.

Players control teams modeled on real-life clubs and they compete for glory. The game comes out each year and every release is a much anticipated event.

Hello and welcome to the FIFA 23 reveal trailer.

I'm Derek Ray and alongside me is Stuart Robson. But this year's release, which happened last month, was particularly significant because it is the last one branded with the FIFA title. After a 30-year collaboration, which has generated both FIFA and EA Sports a lot of money, both of them are now parting ways.

How do you mean parting ways?

Yeah, so from next year, EA Sports will continue to release FIFA, but under a different title of EA Sports FC. So there won't be a FIFA game produced by EA Sports. Instead, FIFA will try and tie up with other gaming companies to produce new football video games. We don't know what those games are yet, but they want to sort of branch out on their own. And because of the split, because EA Sports has been associated with FIFA for so long, for 30 years, there's now a doubt whether these new ventures will be as successful without the FIFA brand and without the collaboration between FIFA and EA Sports.

So before we get into the details of the split, tell me about the long period of the joint venture.

Sure. So the game was first released in 1993. Back then it was called FIFA International Soccer, and it was a pretty rudimentary game, as most video games were. But at that time, it was quite pathbreaking because there hadn't been any football video game at that point, and it quickly became Britain's best-selling video game of that year. And since then, the game has really exploded.

Here we go. It comes to Sam Kerr leading the Chelsea attack.

It's become a subculture in its own right within football and really embedded itself into the sport. Some of the game's biggest fans include top professional footballers, So you can now watch superstar players like Kylian Mbappé play the game online, and you can clearly see that they love it.

Monsieur Hakimi and Monsieur Kylian Mbappé.

Salut les gars. Oh, man!

Lionel Messi, arguably the greatest player of all time, says he spends hours on the game, not just as a source of entertainment, but also a source of tactical knowledge. And many players also track the game's rating system very closely. Basically, in every edition of the game, players are rated on a range of attributes like pace and passing. And when these ratings are unveiled, it's a big event. Videos of players reacting to the ratings are now a common part of the buildup to the release of every FIFA edition.

I'm not happy, you know that.

81! Rate me FIFA. I'm not a fan of this. Why is my pace coming down? It's quite disrespectful, right?

It really is as if the game has become a sport in its own right.

Yes, very much so. So watching other people play FIFA has now become a form of entertainment. Some of the biggest influencers on YouTube, like KSI, for example, started off their careers just commenting, playing FIFA.

Today, ladies and gentlemen, I'm playing FIFA.

Woo!

So obviously your boy has no team and I have 500,000 coins.

And especially in America, it's brought more fans into the sport. According to a poll in 2014, 34% of Americans started following football in real life after playing FIFA at home.

And presumably then for the games maker, it's brought in a lot of money over all these years.

Yes, a lot of money. And especially in the last decade when FIFA has really blown away the competition and become the go-to football game. According to one estimate, EA Sports has earned more than $20 billion over the last 20 years from FIFA. It's by far its most successful title. And FIFA itself has earned an estimated $150 million a year for simply lending its name to the series.

So if everybody's winning, then, then why are they splitting?

So FIFA, the organization, true to form, is chasing even more money. According to the New York Times, they wanted EA Sports to pay more than $1 billion over the next 4 years to use the FIFA name. EA Sports considered that too expensive, and so now FIFA plans to develop new games with other studios. FIFA's president Gianni Infantino insists that any new game that bears the FIFA name will remain the best. However, that's far from a certainty because it's not easy to develop a game overnight, especially one that can beat a game that has dominated the market for so long. And because of their investment in building FIFA over the years, EA Sports is optimistic that it can retain fans next year, even without the FIFA name.

So the question is which half of this partnership the fans will stick with, the games maker or the organization that lent his name to it. I mean, what's your take on that?

I think that's really hard to say at this moment because we just don't have the data on how many people will actually jump ship because there'll be a lot of fans who love the game that EA Sports has made and will stay in with EA Sports. But there are also many, many casual gamers who are just drawn into the games because of the FIFA brand and who might easily just jump to the new game produced with the FIFA title. And then there are also some other uncertainties that make answering this question very difficult because recent editions of FIFA have come under criticism. One criticism has been that the new releases have essentially been the same game repackaged without any real improvements. And then I think there's a more existential issue of gameplay, right? With every edition of FIFA, EA Sports has tried to make the game as realistic as possible. So ahead of FIFA 23, the latest release, the developers recorded several 90-minute matches where more than 70 players wore motion capture suits that allowed the developers to capture more than 6,000 animations, which helped make the game more realistic and authentic. But for many, that's not necessarily improvement, right? Video games, after all, are meant to suspend disbelief. So people like myself, for instance, would prefer to do things in the game like shots and passes that almost defy physics. Than for the game to feel as real as possible. So striking a balance between reality and fantasy will be a key challenge for both EA Sports and FIFA in any future football video games they develop.

Thanks very much for your time, Vishnu.

Thank you, Chase.

Thanks for having me. That's all for this episode of The Intelligence. Let us know what you think of the show. Drop us a line at podcasts@economist.com or leave us a rating wherever you listen. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

Healthcare can feel complicated. That's why Optum uses technology to connect the people and processes that make healthcare easier, more affordable, and more effective. We're making it clearer for you to know exactly what your benefits cover and to help you better manage your health We're coordinating care between your doctors and your technology. We believe better, simpler healthcare is always possible. That's healthy optimism. That's Optum. Visit Optum.com to learn more.